Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It sounds to me you want to try hard to show that the situation in the US is just unlike any of the examples I gave. Free speech is a nuanced issue, because not all limitations to free speech are by laws on the books. Imagine civil rights protests happening in the American South in the 1920s — legal, but dangerous, perhaps deadly for the participants. You could have cases like modern-day Japan where the press is much less critical of politicians to the degree that many Japanese are unaware of what is going on in their government. There were similar effective limitations to free speech in the US during certain time period (during the early 20th century it was anarchists, in the 1960s it was Communists). If we are talking about the legal aspect, then I think the situation was very much the same, free speech was a constitutional right in the Weimar Republic. And there was a very diverse media landscape, from communists to right-wing extremists and everything in between.

In any case, I think to merely argue that “these situations are nothing alike” is myopic and plainly false. Even in situations where you lack free speech (as in the constitutional right), the mechanisms at play are still very much the same — we are all human after all.

Originally Posted by subego

Wasn’t Hitler banned from public speaking? Erdoğan ended up in prison for reading a poem.

Regarding Hitler, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The only thing I can think of is this: Hitler was jailed for participating in a coup (the Beer Hall Coup or Hitler Coup) in the 1920s, and while in prison he wrote Mein Kampf. He was released early for “good behavior” but under certain conditions. While I don't remember those off of the top of my head, it would sound reasonable to assume that one of them was to temporarily restrict Hitler's free speech rights for committing high treason. (Meanwhile, felons in the US after getting out of jail usually lose their right to vote.) Certainly, Hitler did not have any problems to promulgate his vitriol. And for quite a while there were lots of newspapers that were gunning for him because of his dangerous policies.

Regarding Turkey, while Turkey has had lots of issues with its democracy, not least of which is the role of the military, initially Erdogan stood for breaking the chains of Kemalism. Now he has had a vast majority in parliament and the Turkish people are cheering while he is replacing teachers, professors, prosecutors, judges and police men with his own people and closes newspapers. This only works, because crowds are cheering him on and the (significant) minority has no avenue to address their grievances. The conditions during the McCarthy era were very similar, it is just that the US's culture preventing worse things from happening.

What I’m saying is not comparable is the relative power of the Nazis and the AKP vs. American communists and anarchists.

I don't understand the context of your argument: I gave you a list of historical and current examples where the majority went along with tyranny. You counter argued that it wasn't comparable because of different levels of free speech, and that it couldn't happen in the US because of its larger degree of free speech. Then I posted a clarification, saying that there were periods where free speech was clearly infringed upon.

What does the relative power have to do with it? My example were about suppression of free speech rights of a minority by a tyrannical majority — and communists and anarchists in the US fit that description.

Originally Posted by subego

The Nazis and the AKP were much bigger threats to the ruling party as evidenced by them becoming the ruling party.

The topic of the discussion is tyranny can be supported by the majority, and I only gave you a list of successful examples. That is in contrast to tyranny where a minority oppresses the majority.

In America, we have a two-party system, and those parties act as the other’s opposition.

The Communists are not one of those parties. Suppressing them does not keep the opposition out of office.

If the opposition can democratically take power from the ruling party, it becomes a stretch to call the ruling party tyrannical. Name me the tyrant who peacefully handed over the reins.

My misunderstanding of this whole way of thinking of yours is why I've been sitting this debate out, for the most part. Let me try again...

Why are you so concerned over this tyranny variable and giving it so much value in terms of your ideological justification? There are so many other variables at play, many of which we've covered. Why is this a big worry and concern to you, given all of these other factors?

Also, do you think that academic arguments about tyranny are the prevailing thought of Joe Sixpack who is adamant in not wanting to entertain some form of gun control experiment? I say "experiment" because I don't think it is really possible to predict the exact results of any legislation. I mostly just want to try f-ing *something*, and get us out of this rut.

An argument for why you seem so fixated on preventing something that is already highly improbable with our status quo where there are more guns than people in the US when there are so many other options, as we've discussed, and when this option carries such a heavy price, and wouldn't arguably even work in the first place.

You seem like a perfectly reasonable dude and I love you, but this thought process of yours is bananas.

I’ll attempt to cover them all the points, but let me pick on the first one for a moment. The idea tyranny is improbable.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but since we last had this discussion, we elected Donald Trump, and being a Nazi has become a “thing”.

Has the foregone conclusion about the resiliency of our system perhaps slid closer to the “arguable” category?

Not really, no.

I don't see any significant population talking about physically removing him from office, it's just all about voting him out next election. Democracy is still a thing, and like has been said, even if that fails leaders can be removed with terrorist cells, cutting off financial enablers, constitutional law, etc. Leaders can have their way without posing the sort of perceived threat that would lead to an armed rebellion. We've been seeing this for years.

Should we be worried about millions being killed by a giant asteroid hitting the planet?

I'm not really sure that analogy works, but it seemed clever at the time. Hopefully it won't be too big a distraction.

I didn’t put the goal posts at Trump is bad enough it justifies armed rebellion, I put them at his success demonstrating the possibility our country could travel down a darker road than one would imagine a few scant years ago.

Which means it could be darker than we imagine a few scant years from now.

I’ve been the first to say Trump isn’t that big a deal unless you’re a Mexican... right up until terrorists light up a dirty nuke. I cannot even begin to fathom how ****ed we are if that happens.

I didn’t put the goal posts at Trump is bad enough it justifies armed rebellion, I put them at his success demonstrating the possibility our country could travel down a darker road than one would imagine a few scant years ago.

Which means it could be darker than we imagine a few scant years from now.

I’ve been the first to say Trump isn’t that big a deal unless you’re a Mexican... right up until terrorists light up a dirty nuke. I cannot even begin to fathom how ****ed we are if that happens.

Aren't all of these crazy gun rampages a dark road? The fact that there are more guns than people? Is there a point where this road becomes darker than the other road you are trying to save with your subego-tactics?

I’m singling this one out because it’s an order of magnitude less reasonable than the others.

The plan could itself be exploited for tyrannical purposes? Reasonable.
The cost of the plan is greater than the benefit? Reasonable.
The plan flat-out won’t work? Reasonable.

What the plan attempts to address is too improbable? That’s ****ing batshit.

Not at all.

Again, it is improbable because:

1) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via small terrorist cells rather than a massive citizen army
2) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via constitutional law
3) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via democracy
4) a complete tyranny (ala the nazi-regime) may not even be necessary for the government to get what they want (money/power), witness what we have right now
5) I bet there is a number 5

The point is that all of the layers and systems that we'd have to work through before we are left with literal nazis with the only remaining solution being a massive citizen army makes this idea really improbable, is bananas to worry about to the extent you are.

There is no historical precedent with any of this stuff. There is no history of the military having access to drones and other robotic shit, little history with terrorist organization and mobilization using the internet, etc.

Again, another reason why your obsession with guns is over the top. Even if I were to get absolutely everything my way (assuming I could figure this out for myself), there are still 50 trillion guns in circulation - more than enough to outfit trillions of terrorist organizations. This doubling down on more and more guns has no end to it.

There is no historical precedent with any of this stuff. There is no history of the military having access to drones and other robotic shit, little history with terrorist organization and mobilization using the internet, etc.

Repeating. These are reasonable arguments.

Defend or concede the unreasonable one.

We don’t need a massive citizen army: does not address the probability of tyranny.
Tyranny could be addressed through legal/constitutional means: does not address the probability of tyranny.
Money and power are achieveable without tyranny: does not address the probability of tyranny.

Most of the arguments I’ve seen are about how guns will be ineffective at stopping tyranny, not arguments for why tyranny is unlikely in the first place.

From above:

Again, it is improbable because:

1) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via small terrorist cells rather than a massive citizen army
2) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via constitutional law
3) tyranny could (maybe) be addressed via democracy
4) a complete tyranny (ala the nazi-regime) may not even be necessary for the government to get what they want (money/power), witness what we have right now
5) I bet there is a number 5

I truly believe the 2nd Amendment/prevention of tyranny argument is analogous to a religious argument. It is a tenet of faith among some. It can't be argued with facts or evidence from either side because it is a matter of faith, not reason.

No one on this board is going to change anyone's mind. Certainly not with facts or logic, because they are wholly irrelevant to the topic.

I truly believe the 2nd Amendment/prevention of tyranny argument is analogous to a religious argument. It is a tenet of faith among some. It can't be argued with facts or evidence from either side because it is a matter of faith, not reason.

No one on this board is going to change anyone's mind. Certainly not with facts or logic, because they are wholly irrelevant to the topic.

I truly believe the 2nd Amendment/prevention of tyranny argument is analogous to a religious argument. It is a tenet of faith among some. It can't be argued with facts or evidence from either side because it is a matter of faith, not reason.

No one on this board is going to change anyone's mind. Certainly not with facts or logic, because they are wholly irrelevant to the topic.

They are rapidly becoming irrelevant to any political topic. Its disturbing. Welcome to the age of stupid.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Within the framework of our constitution and democracy, within recent memory, we razed two countries for a terrorist attack which neither of them caused, threw privacy out the window, and then managed to elect an emotional cripple who runs the country with the aid of a cadre of generals, and put a boot in Western Europe’s eye while we’re at it.

Within the framework of our constitution and democracy, within recent memory, we razed two countries for a terrorist attack which neither of them caused, threw privacy out the window, and then managed to elect an emotional cripple who runs the country with the air of a cadre of generals, and put a boot in Western Europe’s eye while we’re at it.

So where is the threshold that sees citizens take up their arms? If there isn't one, whats the point of 2A? Shouldn't the amendment define tyranny anyway? There is no way modern America will agree sufficiently when it happens because they all have different ideas of what it means.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I truly believe the 2nd Amendment/prevention of tyranny argument is analogous to a religious argument. It is a tenet of faith among some. It can't be argued with facts or evidence from either side because it is a matter of faith, not reason.

No one on this board is going to change anyone's mind. Certainly not with facts or logic, because they are wholly irrelevant to the topic.

I may disagree with the arguments against the Second Amendment, but I don’t object to them. They’re all reasonable.

The one exception is Trump being no cause for alarm on the tyranny front.

This from people who call him a fascist, and claim he’s trying to gut the press.

So where is the threshold that sees citizens take up their arms? If there isn't one, whats the point of 2A? Shouldn't the amendment define tyranny anyway? There is no way modern America will agree sufficiently when it happens because they all have different ideas of what it means.

Here’s the second draft, with credit to Paco for the most substantive change.

Even if we enacted some form of gun control and sat back and just waited for any of these things to happen, it's not as if the gazillion trillion guns will just vanish - they'll still be out there. It will not be hard for the population to put together an armed rebellion.

Although, again, why would they have to? There are so many other ways to remove leaders. I keep on coming back to terrorism, for example. If there are 300 million guns out there and you could kill a leader with 20 (which I don't think is a stretch), why are you so fussed about the millions and millions of other guns?

Would you say there are too many guns out there if that number was 500 million? Is there a number that you would think is too excessive?

I would argue tyranny which exists when the people support it and goes away when it doesn’t is in a different class.…[Yes,] guns won’t stop that. It’s up to free speech.

I believe that easily applies to Russia and the Philippines. (I'd also argue Russia was barely a democracy to begin with).

Turkey is an interesting proposition. Erdogan is moving towards an authoritarian theocracy but a sizable portion of the population wants this. Stranger still, the failed coup of the military was aimed at trying maintain that democracy. That's some amazing irony.

Venezuela: By far the best example. I have a feeling Maduro won't be in power that much longer, though. The entire country is going to shit and nobody supports him. But hey, I could be wrong and we could end up with another Syria.

Still, I want you to note the pattern here: These are not first world countries. These are not Western European countries – our closest analog.